When a team drafts two generational talents, it's mostly a GREAT thing. But one of the negatives to having Sidney Crosby AND Evgeni Malkin on the same team is the (at times) unrealistic expectations that come with it. We're all guilty of having them, and quite frankly it's a by-product of the team that we've built.

In Pittsburgh, there's no "still growing as a coach", as wgknestrick put it. There's no "they were the better team", either. This is Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin's team. These are the New York Yankees of the NHL. If this coach doesn't get it done, you move onto someone else who can. This team doesn't have the time to develop the next Barry Trotz or Lindy Ruff. This isn't Nashville or Buffalo. This team must win, or else there will be changes.

Is it fair? It doesn't matter. We're the Penguins. Crosby's Penguins. Malkin's Penguins. No excuses, just results. That's how it is until the generational talents leave.

You are way, way overstating things with the Yankees comparison. So does everyone else with that tired argument. If the NHL didn't have a salary cap, I'd revisit the argument.

Sid and Geno aren't Mario. Hell, they're not even Jagr.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those days are over and done with. The gap between Sid and Geno and those deemed beneath them, is much, much smaller than the gulf that separated Mario/Jags and those considered to be below them at the time.

Guys like Toews, Kane, Stamkos, Kovalchuk, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Giroux (and a few others I can mention) are all of a notch below our guys. The fact that the argument between who's better has often been interchangeable (depending on the type of season someone's having) since the lockout shows that it's not always a slam dunk argument. There was no disputing who the kings were when Mario, Jagr, Gretzky were in their primes.

This "We are the Penguins" **** has to stop. We're no better than a lot of teams with spread out talent just because of two guys. It's a joke and a fanboy way of thinking.

When a team drafts two generational talents, it's mostly a GREAT thing. But one of the negatives to having Sidney Crosby AND Evgeni Malkin on the same team is the (at times) unrealistic expectations that come with it. We're all guilty of having them, and quite frankly it's a by-product of the team that we've built.

In Pittsburgh, there's no "still growing as a coach", as wgknestrick put it. There's no "they were the better team", either. This is Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin's team. These are the New York Yankees of the NHL. If this coach doesn't get it done, you move onto someone else who can. This team doesn't have the time to develop the next Barry Trotz or Lindy Ruff. This isn't Nashville or Buffalo. This team must win, or else there will be changes.

Is it fair? It doesn't matter. We're the Penguins. Crosby's Penguins. Malkin's Penguins. No excuses, just results. That's how it is until the generational talents leave.

I respectfully disagree with this part of the statement. While we have arguably the 2 best players in the world, we also play within the same set of rules as every other team. The Yankees can spend $100mil more than any other team, so they can buy the best players without having to give up something somewhere else.

I would just point out that look at where the "if you can't win the cup now, we will find someone who can" attitude has gotten the Caps. Who knows, maybe Oates will be a great playoff coach....problem is they won't make it to the playoffs, but Budreau's Ducks sure look like they will. I understand your point of wanting to win now....everyone would like to win now. The point is that half of the teams in the league feel as if they have the team to win now, and making a hasty decision based on unreal expectations more often than not will ruin a team, rather than help it.

You are way, way overstating things with the Yankees comparison. So does everyone else with that tired argument. If the NHL didn't have a salary cap, I'd revisit the argument.

Sid and Geno aren't Mario. Hell, they're not even Jagr.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those days are over and done with. The gap between Sid and Geno and those deemed beneath them, is much, much smaller than the gulf that separated Mario/Jags and those considered to be below them at the time.

Guys like Toews, Kane, Stamkos, Kovalchuk, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Giroux (and a few others I can mention) are all of a notch below our guys. The fact that the argument between who's better has often been interchangeable (depending on the type of season someone's having) since the lockout shows that it's not always a slam dunk argument. There was no disputing who the kings were when Mario, Jagr, Gretzky were in their primes.

This "We are the Penguins" **** has to stop. We're no better than a lot of teams with spread out talent just because of two guys. It's a joke and a fanboy way of thinking.

I don't think Bylsma is the main issue. Firing him may yield temporary relief, but this is still the same core that got Therrien fired. It will happen again. Bylsma is probably the 2nd best coach the Pens have had ever. He has his stupidity with respect to personnel, but so do the Pens as an organization. He still runs a solid theory based game plan. Out shot the other team and play in their zone. Firing Bylsma is much more risk than reward longterm. Shero still has ultimate say over roster personnel.

Pens still seem to not understand that you live and die by 5v5 production. If they followed this rule, they never would've signed Michalek, Adams, Glass, or Asham. Don't even get me started on MAF and their reluctance to bench or trade him. 4th line is and has been a waste of ice time since Talbot left. They NEVER score and only allow goals against. This isn't helping at all. You can't tell me Adams is better than Tangradi / DJ / any warm body in WBS.

Main problem has been a lack of desire to go to the front of the net (in the last 10 games). I constantly see players (especially Crosby) skate right past the front of the net on rushes, or shots. They aren't going to consistently score 5v5 goals without getting their noses dirty in the crease. No 5v5 goals, no winny. My bigger concern with the Pens has been the recent trend of them being out shot in games. You will never field a winning team with a negative team corsi.

I know it's probably an unpopular opinion but I wish we had a guy like Boudreau here. He seems to really get the most out of star players and as a fan the style play he promotes is enjoyable to watch win or lose.

I think he got a raw deal and now they're realizing the grass isnt necessarily greener with the more defensively orientated styles.

I know it's probably an unpopular opinion but I wish we had a guy like Boudreau here. He seems to really get the most out of star players and as a fan the style play he promotes is enjoyable to watch win or lose.

I think he got a raw deal and now they're realizing the grass isnt necessarily greener with the more defensively orientated styles.

I'd say multiple Art Ross Trophies, Richard Trophies, etc. can be considered getting the most from your stars. But I agree, the Caps made a bad decision obviously. They went from a perennial contender to irrelevant in the matter of a year, because of impatience and a hasty decision on blaming the coach.

I'd say multiple Art Ross Trophies, Richard Trophies, etc. can be considered getting the most from your stars. But I agree, the Caps made a bad decision obviously. They went from a perennial contender to irrelevant in the matter of a year, because of impatience and a hasty decision on blaming the coach.

I don't for a second believe we got the most from Malkin or Crosby. Lets just say under Boudreau Crosby would not of had Dupuis bolted to his hip for the last 3-4 years or so. Craig Adams wouldnt be an absolute lock to play every damn game and our younger guys probably wouldve had an opportunity to see what the hell they can do.

I will put in my $.02 for what it's worth. I don't believe that Jag68Sid87 compared the Pens to the Yankees in a spending money, overall dominant franchise sort of way. I belive that he was refering to the wondow of time in we have arguably the two top players in the game as well as several other stars. Having the to top players in the game doesn't happen often in any sport. There is only a limited amount of time to capitalize on that advantage and letting Byslma learn how to be a coach by failing in the playoffs during that window might seem like wasting our talent level.

Personally 100+ point season don't mean a thing to me if the Pens can't make it out of the first round. I would give Bylsma the rest of the season and if the is not substancial playoff progress (ECF, SCF), I would strongly advocate a new coach as well as a new gm. I like Byslma, his system of play is fun to watch, and his personality seems to go well with the city. I just feel that with a health core of Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Neal, Fleury, etc, we should be seeing more postseason success.

You are way, way overstating things with the Yankees comparison. So does everyone else with that tired argument. If the NHL didn't have a salary cap, I'd revisit the argument.

Sid and Geno aren't Mario. Hell, they're not even Jagr.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those days are over and done with. The gap between Sid and Geno and those deemed beneath them, is much, much smaller than the gulf that separated Mario/Jags and those considered to be below them at the time.

Guys like Toews, Kane, Stamkos, Kovalchuk, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Giroux (and a few others I can mention) are all of a notch below our guys. The fact that the argument between who's better has often been interchangeable (depending on the type of season someone's having) since the lockout shows that it's not always a slam dunk argument. There was no disputing who the kings were when Mario, Jagr, Gretzky were in their primes.

This "We are the Penguins" **** has to stop. We're no better than a lot of teams with spread out talent just because of two guys. It's a joke and a fanboy way of thinking.

Right on. The responses to losses are hilarious from this fanbase, which acts as though we should (and deserve to) win every game while we have Crosby and Malkin. News flash: we aren't going to win every game. And we definitely aren't going to beat a team that's at the top of its game while we field a bunch of untested defensemen. New Jersey was the better team twice; they stifled the Penguins, they were faster, they were always in the player's faces, and they outplayed the Penguins. I don't think the Penguins played poorly. New Jersey is a better team right now.

I will put in my $.02 for what it's worth. I don't believe that Jag68Sid87 compared the Pens to the Yankees in a spending money, overall dominant franchise sort of way. I belive that he was refering to the wondow of time in we have arguably the two top players in the game as well as several other stars. Having the to top players in the game doesn't happen often in any sport. There is only a limited amount of time to capitalize on that advantage and letting Byslma learn how to be a coach by failing in the playoffs during that window might seem like wasting our talent level.

Personally 100+ point season don't mean a thing to me if the Pens can't make it out of the first round. I would give Bylsma the rest of the season and if the is not substancial playoff progress (ECF, SCF), I would strongly advocate a new coach as well as a new gm. I like Byslma, his system of play is fun to watch, and his personality seems to go well with the city. I just feel that with a health core of Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Neal, Fleury, etc, we should be seeing more postseason success.

You are repeating exactly what Mtl was rebutting. We have Crosby, Malkin, Letang, Neal, and Fleury. Ok...a Fleury and a Neal and even a Letang exist on almost every team in the league. There isn't that wide a gap between Crosby/Malkin and the rest of the league...nothing like the distance between Mario and the rest. Chicago could say the same thing...we have this window, and we have all this talent, why aren't we winning the cup every year? San Jose too, Detroit, the Lightning, Anaheim with their stars, the Caps recently, Vancouver, Philadelphia, Boston, the Kings. Just because you have some stars or a really great star doesn't mean you are going to win the cup. And if you win it once, it's really unlikely you're going to win it again soon. So I agree with him when he says that we don't have anything truly extraordinary that should make us way more successful in the playoffs year in and year out.

Every team has a Neal and Letang!? I saw a thread where people couldn't even speculate on Letang's trade value because a player like that is rarely if ever on the market. He is one of the most valuable players in the league and Neal could score 50 in a full season. Not many teams have those type of compliments to the best players in the world. And I never said I want a cup every year. It would be nice to get out of the first round.

Every team has a Neal and Letang!? I saw a thread where people couldn't even speculate on Letang's trade value because a player like that is rarely if ever on the market. He is one of the most valuable players in the league and Neal could score 50 in a full season. Not many teams have those type of compliments to the best players in the world. And I never said I want a cup every year. It would be nice to get out of the first round.

I think Neal's more likely to score 30 than he is to score 50, but who really cares? He's perfect for us.

Every team has a Neal and Letang!? I saw a thread where people couldn't even speculate on Letang's trade value because a player like that is rarely if ever on the market. He is one of the most valuable players in the league and Neal could score 50 in a full season. Not many teams have those type of compliments to the best players in the world. And I never said I want a cup every year. It would be nice to get out of the first round.

These are all at LEAST comparables to Letang, with some of them being above and beyond Letang at this stage in their careers. He's a valuable player, and it weakens the team badly when he's not in the lineup for an extended period of time, but he's hardly Bobby Orr, and with the names I mentioned above, he's hardly unique in a League full of very good top flight defenseman.

And mentioning Letang completely ignores the facts I stated in my previous post. Malkin and Crosby are arguably the best players in the world, but the difference between them and Stamkos, or even Giroux who I can't stomach, is basically a couple of slivers.

If you want to overvalue star power while completely ignoring how flawed the rest of the forward lineup is, then I can't help you.

Every team has a Neal and Letang!? I saw a thread where people couldn't even speculate on Letang's trade value because a player like that is rarely if ever on the market. He is one of the most valuable players in the league and Neal could score 50 in a full season. Not many teams have those type of compliments to the best players in the world. And I never said I want a cup every year. It would be nice to get out of the first round.

Neal is a good player, but his point totals are inflated by playing with Malkin. It would be the same way if he played with Crosby. Plenty of 65-70 players would be near a ppg if they played with one of those two.

Letang is a very valuable player , moreso than Neal, but most teams that aren't one of the few bottomfeeders have a guy who is more or less as good as he is, or even better.

Ok. I will give you that these are all comparable or better than Letang. No argument there. Now how many of these teams also have the two best players in the world on them? Most of the players you listed are their teams franchise player. These players on their respective teams sell tickets, merchandise, and everything else (except Chara, Boyle, Keith). Heck, Shea Weber is Nashville. The point is that a player llke Letang is a compliment on the Penguins. And btw, half of your list made it past the first round last year.

Whereas I completely agree with MPF on Letang, I have always disagreed that we are that far off other teams as regards depth.

Take the Hawks.... the league's best team at present.
They had Andrew Shaw, Brian Bickell, Jamall Myers, Marcus Kruger and Victor Stalberg in the lineup last game. You can add Michael Frolik who few here wanted when I suggested that we should take a flyer on him to add skill, and then there's rookie Brandon Saad. That's 7 of 12 forwards who are certainly not elite.

Surely the remaining Chicago players have a few more who can stickhandle, but we are more or less talking one addition on the Pens who is more handsy and more of a skill player to give us the same kind of balance on paper. Dupuis and Cooke last year outscored pretty much anything any of the remaining Hawks forwards have ever done, and Kennedy in PPG terms is very close to being on paper the best of the bunch on the Hawks.

We have 10 million dollars in cap-room and the Hawks have 4.4, so we should have ample room to touch up.

We are basically in a situation where we are one top6 forward short of having the same situation as the Hawks. Ie. one complete line and one line where two elite players are making due with a 'third wheel'.
And if we get that I doubt many/most here wouldn't consider our bottom 6 stronger and more playoff styled than that of the Hawks.

The much bigger difference is that Hawks play a much smoother, more varied and polished brand of hockey. I refuse to believe that this is not primarily because we limit ourselves through the system/breakouts/offensive zone set plays our coach demands.

NB: This is not saying that we don't need another top6 forward, or that it wouldn't be be great getting two. Just that we have too much quality already to accept that we can only play decent looking hockey if opponents fail at restricting time and space for our superstars.

I think there seems to be some confusion over my stance on this issue. For one, I don't believe that the Pens have this amazing roster that is capable and should win the President's trophy. I do realize there are several good teams in this league that match up with us very well. Second, I actually like Bylsma. I've said that he deserves this year and was not one of the people advocating his firing after last years playoffs. It is not like I am just looking for a reason to get rid of him. Third, I am not demanding a Stanley Cup or bust for Bylsma. I just want to see progress in the playoffs. My point being that the talent on this roster should be able to get past the first round. Im sorry, but I don't believe there is any argument that can be made, baring injury, that would convince me this roster is not capable of winning one series in the postseason. My stance was just that another first round exit should probably warrant a change. I just need to see certain changes from Disco (personnel, system, being out-coached) before I can be convinced he is the right man to lead the Pens going forward.

I think Neal's more likely to score 30 than he is to score 50, but who really cares? He's perfect for us.

Hey long time lurker, first time poster. I'd have to agree, Neal probably wont see a lot of 40+ seasons, but he will be a great compliment to our team and system. Same goes with letang, though, I'm not sure how well he would work on another team that implements a trap of any kind. He wouldn't have very much room to breathe.

Whereas I completely agree with MPF on Letang, I have always disagreed that we are that far off other teams as regards depth.

Take the Hawks.... the league's best team at present.
They had Andrew Shaw, Brian Bickell, Jamall Myers, Marcus Kruger and Victor Stalberg in the lineup last game. You can add Michael Frolik who few here wanted when I suggested that we should take a flyer on him to add skill, and then there's rookie Brandon Saad. That's 7 of 12 forwards who are certainly not elite.

Surely the remaining Chicago players have a few more who can stickhandle, but we are more or less talking one addition on the Pens who is more handsy and more of a skill player to give us the same kind of balance on paper. Dupuis and Cooke last year outscored pretty much anything any of the remaining Hawks forwards have ever done, and Kennedy in PPG terms is very close to being on paper the best of the bunch on the Hawks.

We have 10 million dollars in cap-room and the Hawks have 4.4, so we should have ample room to touch up.

We are basically in a situation where we are one top6 forward short of having the same situation as the Hawks. Ie. one complete line and one line where two elite players are making due with a 'third wheel'.
And if we get that I doubt many/most here wouldn't consider our bottom 6 stronger and more playoff styled than that of the Hawks.

The much bigger difference is that Hawks play a much smoother, more varied and polished brand of hockey. I refuse to believe that this is not primarily because we limit ourselves through the system/breakouts/offensive zone set plays our coach demands.

NB: This is not saying that we don't need another top6 forward, or that it wouldn't be be great getting two. Just that we have too much quality already to accept that we can only play decent looking hockey if opponents fail at restricting time and space for our superstars.

They've also been handed two first round exits, and couldn't win a single game at home last season against Phoenix. They also lost the clincher at home 4-0. Their PP was also abysmal all of last season, which is ALSO inexcusable for that lineup.

As long as we agree that Quenneville should be fired should they lose yet again in the first round, then we can find some sort of middle ground.

This "We are the Penguins" **** has to stop. We're no better than a lot of teams with spread out talent just because of two guys. It's a joke and a fanboy way of thinking.

You mean a Steigy way of thinking? Seriously, no one wants to admit it but all you have to do is go on this board after a game and see how obvious it is that 75% of people actually buy in to Steigy's BS.

Steigy, Errey, and now Grove are all part of the propoganda machine that lives in a world where the Penguins organization can do no wrong. They would tell you every single employee puts the toilet seat down if they thought it would endear one person to the team.

PS: For the record I do think they need more playoff consistency but my post is mostly concerned with this crazy notion that we're the Yankees. Frustrates me to no end.

They've also been handed two first round exits, and couldn't win a single game at home last season against Phoenix. They also lost the clincher at home 4-0. Their PP was also abysmal all of last season, which is ALSO inexcusable for that lineup.

As long as we agree that Quenneville should be fired should they lose yet again in the first round, then we can find some sort of middle ground.

1. Why? Quenneville should get an extra year on Bylsma. He won a cup a year later.

2. Do I really need to apply a to every bloody snippet post to placate your sensitivity on this subject?

Whereas I completely agree with MPF on Letang, I have always disagreed that we are that far off other teams as regards depth.

Take the Hawks.... the league's best team at present.
They had Andrew Shaw, Brian Bickell, Jamall Myers, Marcus Kruger and Victor Stalberg in the lineup last game. You can add Michael Frolik who few here wanted when I suggested that we should take a flyer on him to add skill, and then there's rookie Brandon Saad. That's 7 of 12 forwards who are certainly not elite.

Surely the remaining Chicago players have a few more who can stickhandle, but we are more or less talking one addition on the Pens who is more handsy and more of a skill player to give us the same kind of balance on paper. Dupuis and Cooke last year outscored pretty much anything any of the remaining Hawks forwards have ever done, and Kennedy in PPG terms is very close to being on paper the best of the bunch on the Hawks.

We have 10 million dollars in cap-room and the Hawks have 4.4, so we should have ample room to touch up.

We are basically in a situation where we are one top6 forward short of having the same situation as the Hawks. Ie. one complete line and one line where two elite players are making due with a 'third wheel'.
And if we get that I doubt many/most here wouldn't consider our bottom 6 stronger and more playoff styled than that of the Hawks.

The much bigger difference is that Hawks play a much smoother, more varied and polished brand of hockey. I refuse to believe that this is not primarily because we limit ourselves through the system/breakouts/offensive zone set plays our coach demands.

NB: This is not saying that we don't need another top6 forward, or that it wouldn't be be great getting two. Just that we have too much quality already to accept that we can only play decent looking hockey if opponents fail at restricting time and space for our superstars.

You're absolutely right. We're one winger short (two ideally), but we can't ignore the fact that we still don't have that one winger we're all pining for.

Here's my problem with the coaching argument RIP. I have pointed out countless examples of "coaching failures" over the years by elite coaches that the anti-Bylsma brigade would prefer having over him. I put the term in quotes because I'm the type who believes that in hockey in particular, coaches get WAY too much credit for success, and way too much blame for losing.

Seems to me that when I point out Babcock's "failures" in the playoffs, they're cast aside.

When I point out how Hitchcock's team was swept last year, I get the old "Well they lost to the Cup Champs..." retort. I'm not sure what their current losing streak is blamed on, but I doubt you'll hear that it's coaching from anyone here.

Guy Boucher? Seems to me with a healthy lineup, the Pens more than manhandled them last seas, and no amount of pixie dust from any magic wand behind the bench was able to stem the bleeding. I don't need to remind you that they didn't make the playoffs, all while having the benefit of one of the best players in the world on the roster.

Quenneville's teams have been booted out of the first round the last two years, and couldn't win a single game at home to Phoenix in their series. As I already pointed out, they had game 6 at home with a chance to make it to game 7, and they lost 4-0. Their PP was also horrendous all of last season.

I could go on and on with this stuff for so long I get a headache just thinking about it. My point being is that I can't stand how after ONE loss, there's a definitive reason as to why. What makes it all the more amusing is that the same people with the anti coaching agenda also openly admit that there's a ton of help needed on the wing.

You're absolutely right. We're one winger short (two ideally), but we can't ignore the fact that we still don't have that one winger we're all pining for.

Here's my problem with the coaching argument RIP. I have pointed out countless examples of "coaching failures" over the years by elite coaches that the anti-Bylsma brigade would prefer having over him. I put the term in quotes because I'm the type who believes that in hockey in particular, coaches get WAY too much credit for success, and way too much blame for losing.

Seems to me that when I point out Babcock's "failures" in the playoffs, they're cast aside.

When I point out how Hitchcock's team was swept last year, I get the old "Well they lost to the Cup Champs..." retort. I'm not sure what their current losing streak is blamed on, but I doubt you'll hear that it's coaching from anyone here.

Guy Boucher? Seems to me with a healthy lineup, the Pens more than manhandled them last seas, and no amount of pixie dust from any magic wand behind the bench was able to stem the bleeding. I don't need to remind you that they didn't make the playoffs, all while having the benefit of one of the best players in the world on the roster.

Quenneville's teams have been booted out of the first round the last two years, and couldn't win a single game at home to Phoenix in their series. As I already pointed out, they had game 6 at home with a chance to make it to game 7, and they lost 4-0. Their PP was also horrendous all of last season.

I could go on and on with this stuff for so long I get a headache just thinking about it. My point being is that I can't stand how after ONE loss, there's a definitive reason as to why. What makes it all the more amusing is that the same people with the anti coaching agenda also openly admit that there's a ton of help needed on the wing.

This argument really is-- or should be-- beneath you.

I remember someone standing in direct opposition to this argument four years ago, and that someone was you.

Yeah, the Pens had personnel issues (personnel issues worse than now, by the way) and injury excuses, but that couldn't absolve the coaching, according to you.

To wit, people replied 'you have an anti coaching agenda', that it was unfair to judge because of personnel issues, that the coach had just been to a finals, that other comparable coaches in comparable situations hadn't been fired, and they'd then use the slightest sign of life to say 'I told you so'.

No, the only difference between now and then is now YOU believe Bylsma is the right coach for the team and anyone who dares to disagree with what you believe is as mindless as they were four years ago when you were on the other side.

If you want to tell me 'this coach really is good and the other one was bad because that's what I believe', then I could respect that.

1. Why? Quenneville should get an extra year on Bylsma. He won a cup a year later.

2. Do I really need to apply a to every bloody snippet post to placate your sensitivity on this subject?

I'm hardly being sensitive. I've stated more than once that I could care less if Bysma gets fired, starts smoking crack and ends up in a rehab as long as I knew the next guy in line could do a better job.

My playing Devil's Advocate has a TON less to do with defending Bylsma the individual and a lot more to do with defending the position of coach.

You mean a Steigy way of thinking? Seriously, no one wants to admit it but all you have to do is go on this board after a game and see how obvious it is that 75% of people actually buy in to Steigy's BS.

Steigy, Errey, and now Grove are all part of the propoganda machine that lives in a world where the Penguins organization can do no wrong. They would tell you every single employee puts the toilet seat down if they thought it would endear one person to the team.

PS: For the record I do think they need more playoff consistency but my post is mostly concerned with this crazy notion that we're the Yankees. Frustrates me to no end.

Thanks for seeing things my way.

And it's not just those two chuckleheads. You could even defend them in a way because they're essentially Pittsburgh Penguins employees, so they're basically towing the company line because I suppose that's part of the gig.

But it over inflates fan expectations, which is the reason why there's a meltdown even after a 5 game winning streak, or why Eric Tangradi making the most basic of NHL plays is met with "SEE, SEE, HE SHOULD BE PLAYING 20 MINUTES!!!" It's also why Nisky should be traded immediately because Bortuzzo and Despres haven't made a single rookie mistake and can fill in seamlessly for the playoffs.